>> that had a catalytic effect actually i think on demonstrations because people in the streets actually thought that obama was standing with them with the pro-democracy movement. the president actually wasn't. he was trying to have a dialogue directly with khamenei and his focus was on them, not on what was to come later with the green movement. but the united states can have an internal effect. i would suggest and argues that that incident should tell you

that if the united states actually does talk about democracy in iran, if it actually uses its bully pulpit to challenge the regime, to challenge the regime on its internal oppression it actually can encourage change and reinforces to the people inside, psychologically. when we don't do that, i think we send signals to the regime that we don't really care. some iranian diplomats who have defected have made it crystal clear to folks that when they would write their tables back home and around the americans and europeans would come and see them and to talk about only one thing. they would talk about the nuclear program. so what do those diplomats right back home? they'll care about anything else. that's a mistake. >> the thing i would add is we know how to do this propaganda. we have a history, of having to effectively. we did it somewhat effectively

countering the soviet union propaganda but it does take, it does take authorities. it takes resources. and perseverance to do it. >> may i suggest it easier these days because of social networking to be even more effective. >> very much so. in my statement i said we certainly should be targeting iran with this kind of effort in terms of making an impact on those people. i think one of the low point in american history when overwhelming people were in the streets of tehran in 2009, in july, and we had no moral response to the movement. this is one of the most repressive regimes that we have. we did not respond and side with them come much have we have responded to the polish movement, to the ukrainian movement and to others around the world when people get into the streets that are fighting

against the dictatorship. so yes, we can. this much we can do. it should be one of the other things in a kickback. >> final comment and i have to relinquish my time, it's over. let me just say this. there's things we can talk about that are classified but many of the things you've suggested that this government should be doing i would suggest perhaps we are already doing those things which is can't [talking over each other] about. thank you. >> the chair recognizes -- >> thank you for your testimony today. i had a couple of questions. this is with regard to the cartels and this is for the general and also the colonel. does it stand to reason that iranians would not have approached the cartels for the first time with the task as delicate, important, sensitive as assessing ambassador? does not suggest a level of trust indicative of a pre-existing relationship?

whoever would like to address the. the general or the colonel. >> after you, general. [laughter] >> i think the answer is obvious from my perspective, of course it suggests that take off on something as vital as conducting an attack inside the united states. it's got to be a relationship there. there's got to be some trust in that relationship. let me just say something that i want to associate my remarks and totally disagreed with dr. korb that it's is somehow an act of desperation. that is strategic decision thing to attack the united states because of a sense of frustration and chaos. i totally dismissed that theory that they would come to the united states. they came to the united states to do this because they believe it's going to advantage in in their part of the world, and

they're trying to get influence on the united states and the west out of the region. and they fundamentally believe, they will get away with it. when bin laden took the two indices down in africa in 1998 we lost 400 people them. i think bin laden makes a decision, what we did in terms of our response to that is we threw some missiles up into the training base in afghanistan but i think bin laden concludes, i just killed 400 of them and they won't even come for us. i think we can come for them. because they are weak. that's why they are here, because we are weak. that's what they believe. they are here because they believe we are weak and we're not going to respond. >> thank you. this question is for mr. gerecht. is a true that some of the car bombs recently being used by the

cartels in mexico are technically very similar to the car bombs designed used in iraq? and does this indicate possible collusion or training between the cartels and the terror group's? >> i'm not a wiring expert. i doubt it. i mean, i think the knowledge of bombs sort of gets around. proliferation not only cars with high technology, it also occurs with low technology. so i'm not sure that you need to see links to suggest that you have active engagement. you might, i'm not denying it. i'm just saying that this type of knowledge is fairly ubiquitous and it spreads easily. >> anyone else want to comment on that? >> i'll just add generally that we should be wary of jumping too quickly to the conclusion that

in order for there to have been this type of cooperation has to have been institutionalized with lots of truck. the da has done many times which are the same types of facilitators, gregory people who work in the illicit industries. that's clearly happening in mexico. the same people who will move things will move guns or money or people, and sometimes it's just an opportunity. if, in fact, they had all kinds of business in mexico, apparently had a contact with his individual without was a member of the drug cartel, turns out to have been a source of ours, it may just have been that, at a relative in the quds force sees an opportunity leverage a relative who's living in who has connections south of the border and might be able to do this just for money. sometimes it really is just that simple. it's still telling because there are these opportunities to leverage those types of relationships, but it doesn't

necessarily mean that these are institutionalized and we just have to wait to see how the investigation pans out as information is made public to really draw firm conclusions. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the ranking member, mr. thompson. >> i get very much mr. chairman. let me say from the beginning that while there might have been asked perpetrated -- might have been asked perpetrated before the last three years of this administration, it might've been characterized from our response as week, i'm i'm very comparable under the obama administration we've taken some very, very bad people out. there's no question about it. the record is clear. so this notion that somehow as a country we are weak, from my

standpoint i want to make sure that there's some who who disagree with that. but that being said, given the situation what we face now with the drawdown in iraq and the situation with iran, and i want to ask unanimous consent, mr. chair, to into the record a statement by u.s. ambassador. >> without objection, so ordered. >> in going forward, dr. korb, can you give some of us on the committee how you think diplomacy from the u.s. standpoint would be important? some have talked about expelling any iranian official from this

country and going to other levels. but i'd like you, and i'll ask a couple of the other gentleman also, whether the diplomacy in the situation where we are today -- where does diplomacy that? >> as i mentioned in my testimony, i support what admiral mullen recently stepped down as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says, you know, we're not talking to iran's we don't understand each other. i think you've got to keep the contacts open to the extent that you can. and i agree with you, with the president, basically reaching out to them, wanting to negotiate, that it demonstrates the people in iran that we are not the enemy and completely against them.

general keane mission, if you go back and take a look, when iraq attacked iran, we, and i was in government then, supported iraq by giving them photos that they used to drop chemical weapons on iran. and so when you say that, well, they are terrible people, there are things that we have done that i think by reaching out in talking to them and using diplomatic channels, be willing to negotiate, i think we will undermine the narrative of some people in iran that we are just out to harm them if we don't agree with their role in the world. so i'm all for keeping contacts open and talking to them, to the extent that we can pick as admiral mullen mentioned, the darkest days of the cold war, we're not just on u.s. interests in all but u.s. existence was involved. we kept channels open with the soviet union.

>> general, given your 37 years of military experience, what role do you see the military having with respect to iran where we are today? dr. korb talk about diplomacy but i want to talk although a bit about the military. >> yes, certainly. let me just respond to something you already said. when i use the term week i was using iran's perception of us. i was not using my perception of our country. just to clarify that. and i believe bin laden when he believed we were work passionate when we were wiki totally totaly underestimate united states of america and the character of our people. and i think he found that out, obviously. the role of military, plays right now, and with iran,

primarily is planning. i mean, the united states military has been asked to put together a plan to conduct war with this country. on different bases. this is not unusual for us. we have to do that sort of planning in the event we have strategic surprise when the unpredictable takes place. in this case we plan for all at war with them to include a ground war, or we do with very limited action to deal with violation, then. to deal with limited action of their nuclear capability. there's a whole scale of response the united states military has planned, and those plans have been all the way to this president of the united states, and they are approved as plans.

so that's what united states military does. then it goes out and educates and trains officers and leaders in the military on how to do this and conducts exercise. i have, participating rest division commander and corps commander and simulation exercise in conducting war on iran, maybe a dozen times. and you would want us to do that so that if this event happens that we do not want to happen, that we do it professionally and very capably with minimum loss of life. so that's primarily the function of the united states military is serving. they have pushed back against the iranian proxies in iraq. so we were directly involved in that activity and start to some degree today, but that's going to be in minimized dramatically. and we push back against the proxies they're using with the taliban. they're providing the taliban with ammunition and with resources and, obviously, we are pushing back against those.

the primary mission is the one i just had to you. >> yield back spirit the chair now recognizes this is pure for unanimous consent request spent i would like to ask ministers to the generally from texas, ms. jackson lee, be seated and allowed to ask questions. >> without objection, so ordered. the chair recognizes mr. don the. >> i want to thank the general and the colonel for the service. specifically want to thank the colonel for his role, so to speak in beirut in 1983 and i would like to enter into the record a friend of mine from high school from north carolina, lance corporal tim mcneely who played football with my brother who i know personally who died in the morning course of barracks in 1983. is not lost on a lot of us have

been following the situation that the quds force and the terrorist arm of iran hezbollah has been involved with the mexican drug cartel for quite a while. we have raised awareness, mr. chairman, a number of times about this over my short 10 months being in congress. i want to encourage the members of the committee that have not signed on to resolution for 29, which mr. higgins and i have sent a dear colleague letter around on. that resolution basically urges the administration to put the western hemisphere in the administration 2012 national strategy for counterterrorism area of focus. because we are aware of the tri-border region where where of venezuela, we're now aware of a strong working relationship between hezbollah and the

mexican drug cartel and quds force and the drug cartels eric and so i would urge you to cosponsor that and i appreciate the members that have. i asked colonel, knowing our southern border, the comment you made in your testimony, knowing there is a working relationship that's been revealed, what could we be doing differently as a sovereign nation on our southern border to keep any infiltration of personnel or weapons into this country? >> i'm from arizona. it has gotten better, there's no question about it comes to the efforts of a lot of dedicated people. but i have to look back from a historical standpoint and how these things develop, what we can do and what impact they have. they're always very hard to measure, particularly in

real-time. and its delayed reaction that usually is after an attack. and i use as a sample of that from personal history, the mission in beirut of blowing up of our embassy, the attacks on the two embassies in east africa that the general had talked about earlier, that essentially went by with no response. al qaeda never had the capability for the suicide coordinated attacks that hezbollah pulled off during the beirut mission that killed us. they did not have the expertise, and bin laden took inspiration from the success of those attacks, and particularly part of that was our nonresponse, and

there was a meeting, until there was a meeting until him and others who is a point man for the shia who was part of iranian intelligence later as the point of attack for us in beirut, they had a meeting in sudan in 1996. al qaeda's first coordinated simultaneous suicide bombing, first mission, where the two u.s. embassies in east africa. and they expanded that same beirut model for the four commercial airline hijacking simultaneous coded hijacking attacks for us here at 9/11. so i use that with all the activity that is going on what we know about and more

importantly about what we don't know about is building operational bases south in venezuela, and remembers, too, hezbollah has been popping drug trafficking is the tri-border regions were longtime. so that's what i'm saying, when they talk by using drug cartels down there, mexico and so, it's not cold call. they are familiar with this, and i'm sure it had very good contacts with different ones. they are shopping probably and all this. so when they say this is sort of a bumbling attack that shouldn't be taken seriously and all this come i think it's at own risk if we ignore that. and that's part of the problem with this is that our freedoms are our vulnerabilities. and they know how to play this every which way. but to use, and i couldn't agree more, when you have a link to

assassination in this country, and in our capital, of the saudi ambassador, the quds commander connection with that and just walk that back, and he would be current minister of defense, what's their background and so on, i would take this threat very seriously. and it's again, the whole thread i think ties into is what we don't know as much as what we do know. and i know that the fbi and intelligence community, there's a lot of great work on one of the reasons that we haven't been attacked here, but i'll guarantee you that the iranians and this current crowd that runs them, they are driven from their upsets, this is the ideology and so on that they are going, we

are on their schedule, i mean on their target list primarily. and at what it does happen it will probably be as they have key targets and the spectacular coast-to-coast or whatever, just to carry it out because hate and humiliation go along with her obsession against the western world and the united states in particular. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back spirit colonel, i agree with you. i think the potential accommodation between iran and the drug cartels is very powerful and very dangerous. and with that, the chair now recognizes mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the witnesses for very enlightened discussion. mr. gerecht, let me ask, if i

understood you to imply or suggest that the governance of iran is such that you don't necessarily get the same response that you might get from the use of sanctions with another country, and that maybe there is a distance between the governed bodies and the people to the extent that sanctions may not play the same role that they play in another country. >> yeah. i mean, i think that sanctions in iran has been effective in many ways, but if you just take the guard corps, for example,

guard corps has gotten richer and more powerful as sanctions have gotten tougher. so, for them, the last five years have been pretty good years. so i think you always have to try to see it the weight they see. and the thing about the guard corps actually is they have lots of publication. they have their own world. it's actually not that hard to read the guard corps. i met a few guardsmen. in addition to that, it's not hard to actually get a grasp of how they see the world because they are fairly forthright in telling. there have been new launches and variations between individuals at the bottom of the guard corps and individuals of the top of the guard corps, family history, et cetera, all of these things come into play. but i don't think, when a khamenei, supreme leader, tells you that he isn't scared of sanctions, he's telling you the truth. he's not. that's not to say that sanctions haven't heard them and that

bureaucracy in the business community isn't aware of the damage that they've done to iran, but i think you have to be very, very careful in the leading that the sanctions that would make us stand up and take notice do the same to them. i would just make one other little quick comment. it's natural iranians would gravitate, not be spooked by a drug cartels because the revolutionary guard corps is responsible for the movement of the vast majority of all opium, opiates that come out of afghanistan and go to turkey. it's one other major income producers. so that they would gravitate towards that. it's natural that it's not something that would be uncomfortable for them. >> thank you very much. recognizing that sanctions have been used as a diplomatic tool for a long time, i mean, it's kind of a normal reaction, oftentimes ultimately where we get.

dr. leverett, how do we assess, how do we make the assessment of how impactful views of sanctions might be? i mean, how do we determine whether it's doing what we want it to do or whether it's something that we are doing but the value is not there and we're not getting the kind of responses that we might be looking for? >> and the pithy but most honest answer is with difficulty. but it comes down to at its core determining and admitting, and there is no one answer to this across government. not this administration know the prior administration, what is it you're trying to achieve with the sanctions? if you're trying to achieve disruptions sanctions have been tremendous affect the i know nobody who knows anything about

them. there are ways they can be better. i think there are things we should be doing more. but it's been tremendously successful. now, do you also think or expect or hope anywhere along that spectrum that you will put enough sake of and economic misery on either the revolutionary regime or maybe even some point the people, those sanctions are mostly affecting those involved of illicit conduct. they're not the kind of shotgun regime wide sanctions met in iraq. do you expect some combination of sanctions like them would alter the calculus of this regime and make it decide, for example, that perhaps a nuclear program is not a guarantor of its survival, but perhaps and inhibitor and it might cost them their survival. i don't think that's the case. i agree with reuel. i don't think we will be able to do that. but we can do in that sanctions that we will be increasingly

disruptive, bias more time, and also do things as i think a designation of the central bank would do that would have more impact on the country. i've also argued in the house and senate banking finance in and out of government that what we need to do now i believe and i think i'm still a minority on this but i believe sincerely what we need to do is get a better mix of cocktail of sanctions for multilateral engagement purposes and other reasons, we have focused on sanctions that are graduated, targeted on those most involved in illicit conduct. we can target customs three times, three more times, a dozen times. i think we need a full mix. some sage that left some impact on people on the ground as well. that sends a message to domestic iranian channels to the regime and that's a different way of threatening their level of comfort. ultimately, this is a tool not a

policy. it is a tool which uses in tandem with other tools can be affected. my problem is and i used to complain about this all the time when i was in government, that often not because it's the right to that because we're have no good answers, we want to use this tool so we can say we have done something. that's the worst time to use the tool. i used to argue against using treasury authorities just because there's nothing else to do it. it undermines those authorities. i think there's a our ways we can target the irgc better. i think we should be pursuing central bank of iran i would hope this would be done multilaterally because of the potential effect on international economy which is fragile at the moment. that is not something i would say we should do unilaterally because it would have an impact because of the way banks worldwide react to risk issues. but on the flipside much more aggressive designations over a period of time targeting all kinds of quds force, exposing

them even if it's not seizing assets, these are the types of things we can do unilaterally with zero cost. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. davis picked a chair recognizes in the order of appearance before the gavel. >> this has been really fascinating hearing this morning, and i thank the witnesses for thing you. certainly we have a wide range of experience and we certainly have a wide range of opinion on what we need to do, when we need to do it and how we need to carry it out. certainly, you know, i believe that the comments about iran's hate and obsession for us is really what drives their actions against us. i think even more than the fact that they might perceive us as being weak.

interested, a couple hours ago, general keane is a testimony and mr. gerecht his testimony, general keane, you certainly belief that so far sounds like the sanctions that we have been using have been not as effective as they could be. and you used the term we should be grabbing him by the throat, and really ramping up sanctions and everything from seizing their assets to denying them entry to ports around the world. mr. gerecht feels that until we should somebody they are not going to pay attention. sitting here two hours later, is that still your view, general keane, that they ramped up version of the sanctions is really where we ought to be going now? or do you feel like the only way

to get their attention is to use military action, actually shoot someone? >> i do think the fact that they made this decision to come inside the united states and conducted this attack is something that we should not walk away from, and we should not treat it like other terrorist attacks in the region, even though many of those were against us as well. i'm suggesting that they have been killing us for 30 years, and we all know that. and until we get more effective with our response they will continue to kill us and they will continue to work against our interests in the region. remember, there are objective is to drive us out of the region. that's clearly what they want. so to date, on the merits of that we haven't been effective

in stopping them from one, killing us, too, sponsoring terrorism, and three, continue a program to develop nuclear weapons which i'm convinced they haven't given up on. so i want to read look at the whole issue, number one. admit to us that they are our strategic enemy, using all the elements of national power, hold the military element in check, and as i said it figuratively, get our hands around their throats, and do it comprehensively and as much in your simultaneous as we possibly can. and i agree with reuel that yes, we should target them. i mean, my god, with other terrorist organizations and the lead of them who have killed us and with target them and killed them. why do these guys get a pass? they shouldn't get when. they should feel that kind of

pressure. i'm not suggesting that we bring in military forces and conduct operation inside iran. i'm not suggesting that at all. i am suggesting that we conduct covert operations. i am suggesting we conduct espionage that is covert as well. they have to kill some of the pressure. and if we don't recognize that, i'm convinced it's just going to continue. >> thank you. do you have an answer for that? >> you are backing down on shooting someone? you know, obviously being low on the totem pole i know most of my questions have our event asked and answered. but one of the things, maybe i'll ask the entire panel, none of you really mentioned it or suggested it, but, you know, a lot over the years, i think a lot of these attempts have been

forwarded, thanks to a large part our law enforcement officials on the ground, and, of course, congress is in the middle of some tough debates on our budget, our server committee is looking at -- super committee is looking at cuts to our defense. many grants are looking to be pared down and some eliminate altogether. i know i've been pushing for our port security grants to continue for another year because i still feel like our ports are a vulnerable entryway into this country. i'd like to your some thoughts on the importance of the continuing to fund programs that directly help to secure our local law enforcement efforts on the ground as a way to continue

to attempt to thwart what we may not be able to stop another way. >> i think the way that you need to do this is to look at national security in a holistic way. whatever you decide to spend on the department of defense, homeland security, state, and all of these things, recognize they all contribute. now, you mentioned the fact that you are concerned about port security. do you realize we spend more on one program, in the department of defense missile defense, that we do on the entire coast guard? and if you look at it in a holistic way you could say where isn't likely that somebody is going to shoot a nuclear weapon at us with a return address or tried to smuggle it in. i would say the latter. i would give more priority to that but the reason you can't is because you have a stovepipe window to the budget in the executive branch and you do it over here, so what i would urge you to the extent that whatever number you decide you're going

to have to reduce to do with the deficit, to look at ad in a holistic way. and for years we've been putting out a program called unified national security budget that assesses some of those trade-offs. we take the amount the administration, bush and then obama has, and we took a look at how you can get more bang for the buck. >> any other comments? spirit as a former fbi guy, i should probably say that i completely occur. this was an amazing example of what we can do. i mentioned earlier a dhs program on customs enforcement, not only here but abroad. dhs people in brussels for example, doing tremendous work. sometimes i'm concerned that we minimize the importance and role of law enforcement and it gets politicized sometimes. these are not either or sanctions, not either or. military is not either or. it is getting the cocktail right, giving the knicks were

eyed. i think is cased in the of what we are doing at home and what we are doing abroad, this plot was not afforded at home. extorted in mexico because da is doing what it does exceptionally well every day. we need to maintain that vigilance. that's clear. but money also has to be cut. i'm glad it's you and not me. >> i agree as i indicated earlier, meeting with these agents who pulled this thing off and intelligence community. he did a magnificent job. with that, the chair recognizes mr. higgins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and iranian political and terror ethos, there's a new enemy, israel but there's also the far enemy, united states of america. is iranian -- so i commit my colleague jeff duncan for his

bipartisan resolution to include a certain area of focus the western hemisphere in our nation's counterterrorism efforts. i think it's very, very important. hezbollah, the party of god, is a shia terrorist group highly committed to violent jihad. hezbollah acts as a proxy, as a pawn, as a tool for venezuela, syria and iran. hezbollah has a presence estimated to be between a few hundred, to achieve thousand pashtun to a few thousand in latin america. hezbollah, also has a presence in 15 american cities, including four major cities in canada.

we were told in previous hearings that while the confirmation of hezbollah's presence in north america is indisputable, that we shouldn't worry, that they are just here for fund-raising activities. hezbollah, a terror group committed to violent jihad, i don't make the distinction between fundraising and terrorist activity. fundraising for terrorist activity than any terrorist activity. i believe in buffalo, new york, and i know from terrorist history, terrorists cowards look for high impact targets. we had the peace bridge that connects buffalo to southern ontario, the basis north border

crossing for north america. third busiest for commercial vehicles. we have niagara falls, a destination of millions of people, every single year. we have 90 miles away from toronto, a multicultural, fascinating international city. we also have in close proximity a power project which produces the cheapest, cleanest and most electricity than in all of new york state. i'd like you to comment, consistent with the hearings topic, iranian terror operations on the american soil, the iran directly, or their proxies to do their dirty work for them, and what more can we be doing about their presence, direct presence in 15 american cities and four major canadian cities, generally in north america.

>> i am grateful for the question because i'm completing a book on hezbollah's global presence and there's several chapters on this. so i know at least one person will now read it. [laughter] >> now you have to buy. it's more than 15 cities. there's more than four in canada. several years ago in written answers to follow-up question to congressional testimony fbi officials conceded that they have seen them doing more than fundraising in this country. they see hezbollah doing preoperational surveillance in this country. they believe that his primary done for the purpose of betting new recruits. but if i were a terrorist mastermind beheading a new recruit here is primarily responsible it would be fundraising and logistic. there'll be other ways to make sure that this person is a capable fundraiser. i think one of the greatest surprises about this, about this year plot is the quds force was doing this apparently on their

own whereas usually they are doing things together with lebanese hezbollah. that's what has been the indo inserted western hemisphere in argentina. it was the mo earlier in 1994 a few months before the bombing in thailand an attempted bombing of the israeli embassy there. it was afforded not because of anything characters officials did the because the bomber got into a car accident and in many other cases. that may suggest that the current capabilities here are not so high. as i noted in my testimony quds force and hezbollah both have faced a series of failures since 2008 and they try to resurrect hezbollah. that is to try to resurrect what had been a nascent operations capability. we do need to be concerned about this and we need to be concerned about the crossings not just to our south but to our north. in the one case we know of, a

hezbollah guy who had actual trend was smuggled across the border from mexico then had connection in canada as well who was arrested trying to carry out a bombing in israel can't have canadian citizenship who travel on a false u.s. passport, married an american woman, was recently released -- an indictment was recently released to dearborn which was his last known address. lots of movement. this is something we need to be cognizant of. the good news is, and i say this not just because i came to the stand working for fbi but based on the research i've done for the book, i have been tremendously impressed that i've gone out and met with field offices and local police and others, fbi, dea, the work they are doing focus on hezbollah in particular is impressive. >> i would just make a quick comment. the hezbollah is vastly more

comfortable with the expatriate lebanese shia by bush and the iran is our with the xp treats population. the interesting exception of that might be in canada because in canada you have what i call the second generation of iranian immigration. you have much more devout communities, communities that are much closer to the folks back home. date exists almost in ghettos in canada which is something you don't see almost anywhere else with iranian expatriate communities. iranian are naturally going for and that's what he said someone like one of the brothers of perhaps the most famous that famous family in iran. hezbollah has, there's no way around it, has had a certain prestige amongst the lebanese shia community even with lebanese shia who ideologically are not sympathizing with the hezbollah. and it's a problem and it's just

a problem that you have to be aware of. and that's why the hezbollah is much more effective maneuvering overseas and the iranians are. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. >> mr. chairman, thank you to all of the chairpersons and ranking members. thank you for your courtesy. but more important, let me congratulate you for the topic of this hearing. i think if there is ever a time of anonymity on perspectives dealing with iran, it is certainly on the point that they never stop, and that we have concerns that need to be addressed. so let me start with you, dr. korb, on what may be a far stretch the inquiry, which is, and since my time runs quickly, why did the arab spring, even

though i think was about a year ago, they might have proceeded but they didn't succeed much but i remember iranian americans with great emotion when the people of iran grows up, stood on mountains, we will never forget that insightful picture of a young woman bleeding. dr. korb? >> well, i think the reason it happened is what happened in syria, bahrain, that people use force or the threat of force to make sure it doesn't happen. remember, in egypt the arab spring succeeded because the military refused to continue to back the mubarak government. and, of course, in libya, once the rebels got a stronghold, the international community was able to commit. you just don't have those circumstances. people like general zinni, admiral mullen, the former head of -- the last thing you want to do is put military involvement.

>> why would they said is equipped basically it would be counterproductive. it would unify the country against, you know, the threats from outside and it would also, basically then they would step up i think the activities that have been described here in other parts of the region. but i can't emphasize too much in my own personal view, time is on our side. they cannot keep on doing what they're doing given and their syrian allies is not, whatever happened in syria they are no longer going to be able to use the serious the way they used to. >> let me put on the record before i ask the colonel, i have no friendship for the iranian government. idea believe the people there, there is a body politic who want freedom. and i'm also concerned in reference to a war that i did

oppose, and though i respect all of those who served ably in iraq, because i fear that we have left maliki in the hands of the iran government. he seems to have the ability to the independent. but what i would like to build on what dr. korb said. do you agree that terrorism today is franchised to a certain extent, meaning individual actors are engaged in terrorism? >> yes. >> did you make a point we were preparing for war against iran? was that your comment that i heard, the military makes plans? >> no. my comment is that, was talking about the sanctions and so on, and the sanctions that we've had, what, 25 years against iran, as sanctions are increased and so on, one of the major

purposes for the sanctions are what is the response of the one year sanction against, which is iran. and we've seen a steady pattern that continues of them expanding their terrorist activities your and when you step back and not that the sanctions have had some effect, they are very hard to have any kind of measurements of effectiveness. they have some and all this, but as doctor leavitt said, they are more tools and policy. but the point that i was getting at is, with the sanctions is that you look back and what have they accomplished? and iran, throughout this whole period, has not only retained but expand their terrorist activities, such surpassed the

number one. when you look at, they decide to go nuclear and open defiance against a united world against this, not only in the region but worldwide, and how they are fighting that in your face and continuing that, yes, there has been the current sanctions are disrupting that, but at some point in time there has to be, are these going to be effected the net in order to have a iran change behavior. so that's constantly being looked at. it's not going to work with them. the other thing in iran, i refer people to read the book by the iranian, it's a pseudonym, called a time to betray. it was a cia agent inside irgc during this whole period for the

cia. and it gives insights of what the mindset and how brutal they are in suppressing any kind of protesting within iran. and you saw it bubble up in 2009 election, reelection of ahmadinejad. but the focus was just so severecome and fill that is doing the is the minister of interior that is suppressing all that. so that's what you don't hear a lot of that in a protest within iran. >> may i, dr. levitt, i want to ask you a question. thank you, colonel. i just want to follow-up on this point. in your following on the colonel, clarify that as we accelerate in the frustration with iran, obviously as it might be with any country, the military in the nest it's always

are engaged in planning and preparation doesn't mean they are engaged in moving on a country. i think that is the interpretation. but i notice in your testimony you indicated the saudis had at one point asked that the head of the snake should be cut off. my question to you on this whole issue of terrorism as it circulates around this horrific and horrendous potential assassination that grabbed the united states and the saudis in the mix, we have a responsibility if we act in any way one, it should be collaborative, one, should be based on facts, and we should be very consistent with protecting the homeland. so do you have a response on how you generate those three points that is something short of saying we are going to allegedly attack this sovereign nation, that potentially has nuclear

capacity? >> thank you for the question. i think that it's important as you for basically everyone on the panel described one way or another that this been all element national power approach. it's not sanctions or something else but it's not law enforcement or something else. it's not covert action or something else. it's all of these things in tandem at the same time. i think it's at the same time in tandem in a concerted effort over a short period of time that would be what's new. we've done a lot of these things and we pause and wait. what we need in response to this is a clear message. a clear message need not be military action to issue the a lot of different types of action now at the same time that can send a clear message. someone earlier asked something about creating or promoting or undermining figures within the machine to as you're asking about the arab spring this came to my. one of the things that treasury i noticed i do is to try and target sanctions when everything sanctions that will promote

fissures within the regime. that's one of the reason that the administration came up with human rights executive orders and it's the quds force again and the militia that are responsible for cracking down on peaceful protest. it's the quds force that is in large part responsible for the missile ballistics program. and, of course, often the very same people. and that since the redesignation of suleimani does send a message. we can target these have multiple processes, not only in terms of trying to shut down the next quds force front that is trying to figure some material or prevent somebody from traveling, but also send messages to the iranian people that we are promoting their efforts at peaceful protests here i think that's really important if you do all of these things intended you can send your message. we talk much, much earlier about messaging. you can promote security and homeland. you can even disrupt their

activities abroad. and i think we need to be doing all these things. >> thank you, doctor live. the chair now recognizes speakers i want to thank the panel for he for a remarkable presentation to us today in addition to the response to the questions. we've heard everything from bumbling and disarray, but we have also hear lethal and persistent. i think the one consistent thing we hear is that they are here as a result of, we have to come together with some appropriate response. i want to thank you for taking the time to raise the red flags that we have discussed have not been seen or watched it before. and i certainly hope that that failure of imagination that was discussed at the end of the 9/11 report, clearly your kind of study of this current moment allows us to anticipate. and i hope that we are able to

respond in an appropriate fashion. thank you for the work that you do, what you have been and what you continue to do to help us to protect our country. >> the chair recognizes ms. speier for a closing comment. >> i would like to associate myself with the comments made by my chair. i also want to say thank you again for your presentation. i want to underscore the fact that many of you in further questioning recognize that military action, immediate military action is not what we should be looking at. but it's very clear that anything we do look at needs to be multilateral, that our vigilance needs to be heightened, and that we need to do everything we can to nurture the arab spring that is percolating within iran as well. so i thank you again for your testimony. >> mr. chairman, may i -- >> it is getting late spent the i put a question on the record? >> put it on the record and.

>> you might not answered and i appreciate that, but i think one of our difficulties for those of us who have engaged with the iranian resistance here in united states and in europe is that we need to delineate and declare whether this group can move forward in a non-terrorist label. they may be, in fact, individuals i can encourage the democratic movement in iran, and they have been in limbo. they are here in the united states. they are viewed as good citizens and they are being, they're asking this nation to address the question, this hearing asks about terrorist activity that generates from iran. i hope we can get an answer from iranian americans who are supporting the iranian resistance once and for all, including a response to can't ask with which i know you're familiar with. >> actually point. let me thank the witnesses for being here. i think is very compelling testimony, and particularly the fact that this assassination

attempt in this country come in washington, was sanctioned at the highest levels of the iranian government. i think that sends a message to us but we need to send a clear message to iran. and we need to respond effectively to iran, and we fail to do that since 1979. and i think the takeaways i get, all elements of national power, we need to treat iran as a strategic enemy. we need to seize their financial assets. we need an offense if cyber campaign against them. we need sanctions for the first time to enforce sanctions against them, against their central bank. we need more aggressive designations. we need the expulsion of iranian and hezbollah operatives in this country. we need a significant covert action against iran. and, finally, we need to support this resistance of movement within iran, this youthful secular movement to finally

overthrow the ayatollah khamenei. so with that, mr. meehan and i'm going to submit a letter, a letter to the president with the findings of this hearing. i would hope that with the ranking members will also join us in that letter to the president. is a been a very, very productive hearing. thank you for being here. this hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] .. ç z(j(

follow the career of thomas e. dewey, a dominant force in state politics as we 3-time governor and influence in national politics in the election of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. the contenders live from the roosevelt hotel in new york city tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

>> next a hearing on the military readiness could be affected by budget cuts. the house armed services subcommittee on readiness with representatives of the army, navy, air force and marines for about two hours.

[silence] >> i want to welcome our experts and the panel to the hearing focusing on how to maintain readiness in an age of austerity and what is the risk of the national defense of our country if we continue making the cuts to defense that we hear being discussed in washington. i want to thank our witnesses for being with us. i know several of you had to cancel longtime personal commitments to be with us this morning. appreciate your willingness to set the fire before the subcommittee on this most important topic. in the interest of time because we know we could have votes coming any time and we may have to recess and then come back because this is important and we want to get this on the record i

will dispense with any normal opening remarks. since ms. bordallo is not here we will dispense with remarks and put them in the record. i will look a procedural matter we use in this committee and that is we discuss prior to the hearing that we would like to dispense the 5 minute rule and the part regular order so members may ask questions during the course of the discussion. this will provide a roundtable type forum and enhance the dialogue on these important issues. we would like to proceed with standard order for members to address witnesses. if any member has a question pertinent to the matter being discussed at the time please wait to be recognized by the chair. we plan to keep questioning to the standard five minutes but i don't want to curtail productive dialogue. i ask unanimous consent for purposes of this hearing we dispense with the five minute rule and proceed as described. without objection it is so ordered. we are delighted to have you

here with us today. we have the honor of having general chiarelli with us who is vice chief of the united states army. he has commanded at every level from platoon to corp. commanded the united states european command, director of operations readiness and mobilization at headquarters department of the army. and we have admiral ferguson. we are delighted to have you with us. he is vice chief of naval operations, navy personnel command and chief of legislative affairs and naval personnel. also general joseph dunford jr. is the assistant commandant of the marine corps. he has gone for u.s. army ranger school, marine corps amphibious warfare school and u.s. army war college and very distinguished career. we appreciate your expertise he brings to this panel.

last but certainly not least is general breedlove. we appreciate you once again being with us. general breedlove is vice chief of staff of the u.s. air force at georgia tech graduate and we enjoyed a graduate of university of virginia playing you the other week. it may be the one bright spot we will have this year but thanks for your help and cooperation in that. he is also a graduate of arizona state university where he had a bachelor of science degree and national war college. without further ado we want to get right to your opening statement. we are pleased to have the ranking members join us now. we also have with us the chairman of the full committee. we talked before you got here dispensing with opening statements and putting them in the record because we're going to call votes in 10 or 15. >> i want to welcome our witnesses today and placed a statement in the record. >> we appreciate your service to

this committee. we worked as close partners and have a special relationship and i appreciate her help with this committee and the great work that she does. with that we will do something a little different today. we will put your statements in the record. and are told all of you before we want you to tell us the importance of what we have. i want you to expound on it with your testimony anything you want to say. we will start, general chiarelli, with you. we have already had $465 billion to cut the national defense taking place in the country. some people talk about an additional $600 billion coming. there are discussions that will significantly reduce the force that we have in the united states army. you have been serving for a long time. you have served in almost every

capacity in the army. when we talk about risk and the risk these cuts could have sometimes we talk in terms of institutions but it comes down to the men. you have seen that historically. what these kind of cuts have done to the risk to your men that will serve under you. please address that question and any other comments for your opening statement and we now turn it over to you. >> ranking member bordallo and distinguished members, thank you for allowing me to be here today. these are challenging times. you heard me say that before. we passed a decade of war with an all volunteer force. we always had volunteers in our force but it is important to note we never fought ten years with an entirely volunteer force. that force is amazingly resilient. at the same time it is strange. soldiers are strained, families are strained. but they have been absolutely

amazing over these ten years of war. i would like to leave you with three key points in my opening statement. first is if we recognize budget cuts and corresponding reductions the structure will be made. we must make them responsible so that we do not end up with a hollowed out force and i can expand on that later on or an unbalanced force. our nation in the midst of a fiscal crisis. we recognize we must all do our part. we are continuing to identify efficiencies and work very hard on our capability portfolio review process which found many of those he efficiencies and we will book many more. we appear before the committee in july and looking at cuts in the vicinity of $450 billion over ten years. the army's portion of that cut with historical percentage at

26% will be tough but as secretary of the army and chief of staff said it will be doable. i get paid to worry about things and our cut may be higher than that. that cost me some. above and beyond that directly and deeply impact every part of our army and our ability to meet the national security objectives and effectively protect our country against all threats. whatever cuts are made carry risks and historically it is amazing to sit here as vice chief of staff when so many of the 32 or 30 one before me have sat at a similar time in our history and had to make some of the same arguments and answer the same questions. i am sure that was true of the debate after the war. i was in indianapolis and start a war memorial to war. of course it was world war i and we cut our army to 3,000 folks only to grow it to 8.5 million in that four year war.

at the end of that war we cut the army again to 530,000 folks, soldiers. the number sounds familiar i hope and we ended up with the korean war. the first battle of that war was for the army during his task force with smith. and ill-equipped, told trained force that had infantry battalions that were in complete and were missing and the results were predictable. it is interesting to note that general bradley when cuts were talking about after world war ii supported this he went on to say that the strength of the military dependent on the economy and we must not destroy that economy but in his autobiography after the korean war bradley wrote my support of this decision, my belief in higher defense spending probably would wreck the economy was a

mistake. perhaps the greatest mistake i made in my post war years in washington. i lived through an army that came out of vietnam ended the same kind of things. ten to 12 years we had to rebuild that army. these questions, these decisions have been made before. there's a tendency to believe that the end of a war we will never need ground forces again. i tell you if we never got that right, we have always required -- just don't have the imagination to predict when that will be. by final point is whatever decisions are made, one ever cuts and reductions are directly, we must ensure we do not lose the trust of the soldiers, the brave men and women who have fought for these last ten years and their families. mr. chairman. i think you and look forward to

your questions. >> thank you. we hope to get into that in the a little more depth as this hearing goes on, what those cuts could mean to your force. thank you for that. admiral ferguson, you are facing a tough time as we keep up your opening remarks. you are looking at 8 navy as we understand the fact that we can argue about numbers but china today has more ships in their navy that we have in our navy. we can pick or choose some of them. not through any fault of yours but through dollars and cents we sent to you. you have $367 million shortfall in your maintenance budget because of dollars we haven't given to you. we recognize on the surface to surface missiles we have a distinct challenge between chinese missiles and our missiles because we haven't given you dollars to protect technology. in addition to that we see the projection for our subs that can

put us in the next ten years where china would have 78 subs to roughly 32 for hours. we can argue around the edges of this but what do these cuts mean to you? $465 million we have done to you serving in the united states navy and what would it mean if we put additional cuts out? anything you want to put in your opening remarks we want to hear from you. >> thank you, chairman forbes, chairman mckeon, ranking member bordallo. it is my first opportunity to testify before the committee and my honor to represent the men and women of the navy, active reserve and civilian who stand watch around the globe today. my appreciation on their behalf for congressional support of them and their family. in an era of declining budgets we are mindful of the lessons of the past and assess force readiness. taken in summer, low personal

quality, aging equipment, degradation and reduced training will inevitably lead to declining readiness of the force. we remain committed to maintaining our navy as the world's preeminent maritime force and to do so we must sustain a proper balance among the elements of current readiness and to the long term and those long-term threats to our national security. those elements of readiness may be simply stated. sustain the force structure that possesses required capabilities and man the force with high-quality personnel with skills and experience, support with adequate inventories and spare parts and weapons, sustained the industrial base that sustains that force and exercise to be operationally proficient and relevant. our objective and challenge in this period of austerity would be to keep funding for future readiness in balance and holding

acceptable level of risk and capacity of those forces to to meet requirements. how we shake ourselves in this environment must be driven by strategy and we feel that is extraordinarily important. the cuts that are contained, discussed, we will accept as part of that reduction in capacity. it will affect their areas of presence that we have a round world on response times. the decisions will be tough but they are executeable and looking at the strategy review going on in the department we can meet those challenges and we will meet those challenges. we intend to take that measured approach. we will look at both efficiencies in our overhead and force structure and modernization would's and support of congress alluded to the impact of sequestration.

that impact on our industrial base in our navy would be immediate, severe and long-lasting and fundamentally change the navy we have today. mr. chairman, members of the committee, appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions. >> you have served your career with men and women under you in the marines and one of the things a lot of people believe is once we get out of iraq and afghanistan you will have all the resources you need to do everything you need to do around the world. if you look at the cuts that have already been made and will get these potential cuts from sequestration the projections are your forces could go to as low as 150,000 men and women. if that were to occur, what would that impact be on you and would you be able even if we were out of iraq and afghanistan

to conduct a single contingency around world and with that if you would answer that question and any opening remarks you might have. >> members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the readiness of the marine corps and have the opportunity to thank you for your support of your marines. as we meet this morning almost 30,000 around the world doing what must be done. original 20,000 in afghanistan, those marines are the number-1 priority and with your support they are well trained and ready to do the mission. i recognize the nation faces an uncertain security environment and difficult fiscal challenges and we have tough decisions to make. to support the difficult decisions we have to make we recently have gone through a structured review effort. we share the results with the committee in the past and offer that framework will allow us to

provide recommendations to the secretary of defense to frame the issues similar to ones the chairman has an opening question. i want to assure you we recognize the need to be good stewards of resources and we are working to account for every dollar and looking to make sure every dollars well spent. in the end we have to make cuts. as we provide input we need to address three considerations. strategy, balance and keeping faith. with regard to strategy we need to know what the nation requires us to do and the resources available will build a most capable force we can to do it. secretary panetta refines the strategy to use what we learned in the structure review effort to make recommendations. with regard to balance we don't want to make cuts in a manner that will create a hollow force and we have seen that in past drawdowns. i have seen that in the 1970s as a young lieutenant. we don't go back to when we had an imbalance between training and equipment and modernization

efforts. regardless of the size of the marine corps at the end of the day every unit in the united states marine corps will be ready to respond to today's crisis today. finally we have to keep faith with our people and do that because it is the right thing to do and necessary for us to maintain a high quality all volunteer force. in all our deliberations we need to send a loud and unmistakable message that the contribution that our men and women have made are recognized and appreciated. there are certainly many different definitions of keeping faith. something attributed to george washington gives us a good baseline this morning. washington said the willingness of future generations to surge out directly proportional to how they perceive veteran beverly wars were treated and appreciated by our nation. those words to be seen as relevant today as they were 200 years ago. to get back to your specific question, what would happen if

the marine corps was 150,000. when we went through the first structure review effort we came up with the size of the marine corps of 186,000. that is a single major contingency operation force that can respond to one major contingency. 150,000 would put us below the level necessary to support the single contingency. the other thing i would think about is what amphibious forces have done the past year. humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in pakistan supporting operations in afghanistan with fixed wing aviation. responding to the crisis with pirates, supporting operations in libya. supporting friends in the philippines and japan and at 150,000 marines we have to make some decisions. we will not be able to do those things on a day to day basis or meet the commander's requirements before engaged forces, to potential adversaries. we won't be able to assure our potential friends or allies and we won't be there to contain

small crises before they become major conflagrations. at 150,000 marines there would be significant risk institutionally inside the marine corps because we will be causing marines to do more with less but as importantly or more importantly the responsiveness to combat commanders in crisis response will be significantly degraded. >> thank you. general breedlove, thank you for working in your schedule to be here. we often hear everyone talking about leaving iraq and afghanistan but we know when the air force -- everyone else might come home the air force often does not. they still have to stay and continue to do operations. i would like to have any comment you have about what these cuts have made to the air force already and what future cuts could do. >> thank you, chairman forbes,

thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about 690,000 proud evan who served as part of a joint team you see in front of us. these are challenging times and the air force has been at war more than two decades. we have fought alongside our joint team afghanistan since 9/11 and we went to the gulf in the gulf war at the beginning of the 90s and didn't come home. quite often when the nation comes back from a war we leave significant assets to remaining forces to provide support to those who would remain behind in the region and that was witnessed as you know in northern fly watch and northern or southern watch and the air force stayed and kept tempo. the cuts that we see in front of my remarks will talk about in a minute. they are challenging times and the tempo is exacerbated by the

fact that our air force since the opening of the gulf war kept 34% fewer aircraft that we started with. 26% fewer people. the tempo that we face which we don't see a change in in the future puts a big stress on the force. that led to a slow but steady decline in our unit readiness as we discussed with this committee before. we tried to reset to pick up new missions. the air force build mission inside as we have been asked to support this joint team in intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. we have been asked to build increased capacity in special operations and we will continue both of those requirements as part of this joint team and answer the call in the future. all the while the strain put on our forces and the need to recapitalize our aging fighter, taker and bomber fleet. we are flying the oldest fleet the air force has ever flown and

we need desperately to recapitalization during this age of fiscal austerity. the department of defense will have to be part of this recovery and the air force will play its part in that recovery. our goal is to do two things and you heard several of my predecessor's remarks on that. first of all maintain a credible military force. we expect it will be smaller and much smaller in some areas. but we need to remain credible and capable force as we get smaller. second to avoid becoming a hollow force. like joe and pete mentioned i was in the air force and 70s and saw what a hollow air force looked like. flying with their planes that couldn't fly and buildings with plan many people with no training or ability to accomplish airplanes hadn't fourth. we will get smaller to remain capable with the forces that are

left behind. many of the challenges we see will come on our people and the backs of our people. as we get smaller the tasking does not change as we mentioned. in many cases we stayed behind when there is a peace dividend. the tempo on our air and will increase and more importantly the tempo on our proud reserve component which you know as an interval part of our air force will have to increase because they will become more important in a diminishing force. finally if the sequester cuts are allowed to take place we are going to go beyond getting to our capacity. we believe we will have to look at what are the capabilities we will have to shed and no longer offered to this joint team. reduction in size would reduce the number of bases we can support. the number of air men we can keep and the air force. the impact to the size of our

industrial base will certainly be important just as it is to beat navy. much as joe has mentioned as we downsize the first missions will have to shed that engagement that we see around the world where we conclude further conflict or build a allies that will help us will not be able to make those contributions. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. as each of you know this is the most bipartisan committee in congress. we work together very well and privileged to have all our members here. we are also honored to have the chairman of the full committee and part of the reason we serve in such a bipartisan means is because of his leadership. he said he would like our members to ask questions so i don't think he will ask questions but i would like to defer to him any comments he might want to make. mr. chairman? >> thank you for being here and

for your comments. the cuts that you are working hard to put into place i met with admiral mullen a month and a half ago and he said he assigned the chiefs $465 billion in cuts and that came from the president's speech of cutting four hundred billion to seventy-eight billion they found and the 1 hundred billion you had gone through with the efficiencies and what we did -- it is the accumulation of a lot of things and hard to get the exact number. the secretary came up a couple weeks ago using 450 plus. is somewhere between 450, and five hundred billion you are dealing with that we will hit the details on in january. i think most people do not understand. their focus on the supercommittee and six hundred billion that will be hit with if

they are not able to do their work. but they don't realize the extent of the cuts you have been working on now for period of time that will be hitting us next year. we are talking -- we have five hearings at the full committee level not counting the committee meetings or subcommittee levels to get a handle on this and try to educate the rest of the congress and the rest of the populace or the country as to what really is going to happen to the military. the first five hearings were the impact on the actual military. the men and when you serve with. those who were laying their life on the line right now as we talk. i have seen lots of drawdowns. i have never seen us do it when we were fighting a war.

it is incumbent upon us to try to get word out to see if this is really what people expect. when i tell people what is happening they say that isn't what we wanted. we want to get the troops out of germany or wanted to cut the waste or get the troops home from korea or somewhere they denied realize the extent of what has already been done or what will happen with that supercommittee. yesterday we have another hearing where we had three economists and they talked about the financial impact to our economic -- are economy. we're already fragile economy with 9% unemployment rate, they are talking about job losses of 1.5 million which will increase the unemployment rate up over 10%. what all the members start looking at their districts and

their homes and jobs, the combination of all of this i am hoping will make a sit back and take a breath and say wait a minute, is this really what we want to do. this economic problem we are in right now that we have been building over decades cannot be solved in one budget cycle. we have to have some real understanding of what we are doing and is this really what we want to do given the risks facing us around the world. with that i thank you for being here and looks like we are going to be having votes which is unfortunate but i am hopeful we will return after the votes. thank you. >> i would like to recognize the gentlelady from wamu for any

questions she might have. >> i hope everyone is with me. i have a very bad cold. i have a couple of questions. i understand we're coming back for a second round. my first question as i play out in my opening statement. further efficiencies and budget cuts would be determined through a comprehensive strategic review. i am asking to what extent are each of the services involved in developing this review, what are the key tenets of this review and without a strategic plan why are we proceeding with arbitrary cuts? why not wait until such a plan is developed? do i ask this because i do not understand the rationale for the reduction in forces and naval facilities command pacific or deactivation of the two c battalions. i will start with admiral ferguson. >> of the gentlelady will yield

for a second they call a vote that members need to go to. we will be coming back afterwards for anyone who can come. miss bordallo's question will be the last week take a recess. with that if you would like to answer. >> all the services are participating at the service chief level and the vice chief level in the forums that is the ongoing strategy review at the level of the secretary of defense has. those discussions that are ongoing presently are looking at the budget submissions and services have done and they were primarily given a fiscal targets for us to reach and they are looking at those fiscal submissions and the overall strategy as we go forward and we will take action as we make those decisions prior to the budget submission about

balancing between those portfolios in terms of capability and capacity and does it meet the strategy we see going forward. >> what you are saying is the reviews are not completely finished. >> that is correct. from our perspective decisions regarding the final form of the budget submission are not completed and those discussions are ongoing. very active participation. >> do we have time for other answers? >> let anyone answer that want to. and we will have additional questions but we will be here. anyone else like to respond? >> general dunford? >> admiral ferguson got it right. we participate fully in the process to do the strategic review led by secretary panetta. we have an opportunity to provide input in that comprehensive strategic review and we are confident the results of strategic review will be the framework where specific cuts

were made. what we had to do in the initial going was take a look and assume proportional cuts across the board as we went through the drill of $450 billion but at the end of the day as we get towards december the strategic review will be complete. at that point we will talk about the specific decision the secretary will make. our understanding is he has not made any final decisions about specific cuts that would be made to achieve the initial goal. >> pretty much the other witnesses have the same answer. >> i would argue from the army standpoint we are participating in the internal debate but when i get up in the morning and see the futures, how they're doing in the stock market, look around town and see what the think tanks are saying they are discounting the requirement for ground forces which is a natural tendency after what we have been through the last ten years but every other time we have done that in our history as i

indicated before we have done so on the back of service men and women, soldiers on the ground and let's be honest, it has cost us lives. it cost of lives in korea. it cost us lives every single month. >> we haven't done this when a war is going on as the chairman mentioned. what is the timeline for the review completion? >> let's hold that until we get back because we just have a few minutes. we are going to recess until after the vote. anyone that the come back will be back. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> once again we apologize to you for the inconvenience of having to go over and do this vote but that is why we're here for. we thank you for your patience and we were continuing with miss bordallo. >> thank you very much. general breedlove. we will begin with you. what is the timeline for the review completion? >> we all looked at each other and same -- came to the same conclusion. the review should wrap up in december and as we are working

on the budget issues between now and then as we understand the facets of the review that apply to the budget process as we do that and i would echo my three compatriots that we are to this point, we have been formulating that strategy. >> that is the end of december. >> that is our collective wisdom. we have the same date in mind. >> admiral ferguson. you didn't answer fully the question i asked about the review process. i said i did not understand the rationale for the reductions in force at the naval facility command pacific or the deactivation of the two c battalions. can you answer that? >> as we looked at force structure of the construction battalions around the globe the

initial budget submission we prepared had a reduction in order to meet the command of the combat commanders. as we size our forces those forces are really on call to serve future demand. as i alluded to in the opening statement we had to take reductions in certain elements of capacity across the force in order to meet the budget targets we had and looked at that area to cds as a potential reduction. as we go forward in this review process that is part of the effort we're looking at as to what the final force structure of the construction battalion would be. >> thank you. i have one other question. why would congress consider any potential change to recruiting and retention incentive such as military retirement and health care or reductions to essential training when the military department can't identify the cost of what they pay for

contract service? the army has fulfilled requirement for fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization act that requires contracts or inventory contracts for services for half a decade while this nation has been at war. the air force and navy and defense agency's failed to implement this law which would help us control skyrocketing costs and expenditures on contract services. what are your military departments doing to decrease service and work requirements instead of just reducing dollars? if you are only reducing dollars you are likely setting up conditions to default contractors in light of the current civilian hiring freezes. i guess the air force will answer that first. >> thank you for the opportunity. we are as our other services

looking at everything we do contractually especially as we learn lessons of the wars we have been in for the last ten years. what is inherently governmental and what should we be retaining as a blue suit retirement versus those things we contract for most specifically in combat zones. every facet of what we do has been reviewed to see if this is something that we either want to eliminate, that we need to repurchase and bring back into our service those things in a military way. this isn't the time when we expect that our air force will get smaller rather than larger so there is a lot of pressure on that process. and how does that relate to jobs that our civilians do, civilians who are part of the air force. we're in an ongoing review focusing most specifically on those things done in combat

zones and whether they should be a blue suit job or a contract job and we are putting fiscal pressure on what we spent on contracts to help incentivize looking at how to get that approach. >> anyone else care to answer? >> in the navy the office of secretary leading an effort that goes across the budget submitted offices to look at service contracts in particular and other contract we have a long the same lines as the other services to see what is governmental and where we're paying excessive overhead. >> are you all in agreement? >> we are doing the same thing. i believe the deputy secretary to handle contracts and service contracts going through a complete review of them to understand where there is redundancy and places we can cut and where there are certain

areas that fall into the purview of being able to use soldiers to help us in some of these areas. >> general? >> we are part of the same process admiral ferguson described in the department of the navy. >> what is the timeline for this? >> our process, are do not know what the time line is for the review. my assumption is it is in conjunction with the budget that will be in december. we have initial assessment of contracting at that time and i will get back to you if it will extend past december. >> thank you, gentlemen. i yield back. >> the gentlelady from guam has additional questions that she has deferred so some of our members can get their questions in. we now have gentleman from georgia, mr scott for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

one of the things i hope you continue to do is inform the committee of things that are in the code sections weaken take out better increasing costs of operations, things we would like to pretend we can afford but we can't such as the energy mandates or other things that are running up the cost of operations. general breedlove, i represent robins air force base. i would love to invite you to the air logistics center if you will come in hunting season, i will make it a worthwhile venture. i will get you to a georgia tech game though i might wear a different hat at the game. it would be a great opportunity. the men and women in our area are very grateful for the commitment of the three depots strategy and i want to ask the question to make sure that is a commitment from the airports that we maintain the three

depots. >> i hope as we go through these cuts -- as a member of congress i know that you know more about running your agency's beleaguered and your different departments than i do and i hope you will be very forthcoming with us about what we can do to help you in doing that and a want to be an ally for you. i am sorry we are going through this. i am quite honestly embarrassed we have more discussions in this congress about cuts to the military that we do about cuts to the social programs. i think that is something that quite honestly is carrying america down a very dangerous path. i know america is tired of the wars in afghanistan and our men and women that have been over

there will continue to go but they are ready for more time with their families but i'm not sure when we come out it will not be more dangerous place than it is today. i want to thank you for everything you have done. general breedlove, thank you for your support and if i can ever help you please feel free to call the office. >> thank you. we have a commitment to the three depots that we think is the minimum. we thank you for your support to us. as all of us look at what we can do to address detail of our forces to add -- that will continue to be important as we go forward. the depots bring in capability to all our services that is unmatched around the world to make sure our services, our air force and the airplane they fly are ready to do the mission and our commitment. >> the other aspect is those

cuts, we need to rebuild a lot of the machines we used. when every dollar we take out of the rebuilding of those machines comes out of a man or woman's pocket working on the assembly line if you want to create jobs i will respectfully submit this is the place where you do it. the country, every citizen gets every benefit from a strong military and every dollar we spend in rebuilding our equipment is a dollar that goes back into an american working man or working woman's pocket. thank you for what you have done and will continue to stand ready, willing and able to help you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for holding this hearing and to the witnesses for spending time with us today.

i guess i want to ask a question about a specific issue which is the c 27 cargo aircraft which appears full production has been put on hold for at least partially delayed. obviously for the army that is a big issue in terms of having that lift capacity because a pretty old group is left there. i wonder if you could give an update where that decision stands, whether it is related to the $465 billion or are there other issues that are at work here? i don't know who wants to comment. >> i will first comment on that. i cannot speak specifically to what you mentioned about the decision on full scale production. we will take that for the record

and get back to you. as far as the c 27 and the mission of supporting the army in what would probably be called the last portion of delivery of goods to our ground forces both marine and army the air force has full commitment to that mission. we will not back off of the requirement for the air force to lead that mission if that mission is to be done with c 27s it is a decision that is still pending and is part of this ongoing budget review but that will be worked out in the next few months. >> i don't know if you want to comment. >> the army is committed to the c 27. it fills a gap. my rotary wing aviators -- boots on the ground for 12 months and coming home 12 to 14 months. rotary wing is downrange today.

a lot is moving from airfield to airfield where it could fill a gap that we think is absolutely critical. even in afghanistan if you take it to other places in the world it is even more convincing plus provides tremendous capability for homeland defense and that is one of the things that was critical about the c 27 and its ability to get into airfields' that other aircraft can't get into in the event of homeland defense kinds of missions. we are totally committed to it. >> if we could get that follow-up that would be great. a number of us are interested in pushing that along if there is a way we can. the chairman in his opening remarks talked about the shortfalls of repair and maintenance. in many respects it should be a milestone year for the navy at least in one aspect.

you will probably hear from me about we are at two a year production the first time in twenty-two years. we are doing again full startup of our and the for the replacement program but this is progress that could be challenged if the sequestration goes into effect. if you could talk about mr. forbes's comment on the impact on fleet size and capability. >> it is an important point because the navy we reset in stride. we deployed in effect over half of our forces are underway. ships and submarines on a given day, 40% are deployed. the demand for those forces is going up so we don't have the luxury of taking them off line for prolonged periods of time. the maintenance money we have when we bring home for their turn around is essential to

sustain that force and reset it and prepare to go both the amphibious lift for the marines as well as aircraft carriers, submarines and surface ships. we have watched the trend in readiness operating within acceptable levels but there is a negative trend over the long term as we shrink those maintenance funds. as we go forward we are absolutely committed to keeping the fourth hole and insuring those forces that are operating are well maintained and equipped to go forward. does present a challenge in a declining budget. >> yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. the dod in the current year budget projected fuel costs at $131 billion and recently pegged at $166 a barrel. projecting that level will be

sustained throughout the balance of this fiscal year how are you going to deal with that? general breedlove, let's start with you. >> thank you for the opportunity. we have an aggressive program in fuel savings and are looking at numerous opportunities, both existing technologies and new technologies to get after it. a good example is recalling the c-130 engines. if we get to a new corps of those aircraft on those aircraft engines running cooler and running more efficiently the fuel savings is quite important. simple things that we are doing across the aircraft fleet like wings of larger aircraft and changing aircraft some of the exterior hole designs, cut down on a little bit of you. you would think that is not significant but we understand as you do as well that the air force is the number one user of fuel in the united states.

so every little bit that we can cut saves money. to rollback into things that are really needed in our force. we are attacking this because it is the most important thing to get at for air force savings and energy. >> thanks very much. we share your concern about what i perceive to be a critical vulnerability on fuel not only from a cost perspective but a line of logistics, criticality of getting fuel to our forces and what that does to put people in harm's way to deliver that fuel. all our units on the ground in afghanistan have renewed energy sources that started as an experiment and in 14 months it has become every unit that goes over has renewable energy and that includes not only solar panels that low energy or energy-efficient lighting. as we look at our requirements as we acquire new equipment,

fuel efficiency is a critical part as we seek to have new equipment in the future and as a hole in the department of the navy the secretary of the navy has led an aggressive effort to replace fossil fuels with alternative fuel sources with other initiatives developing technology that might be available to release us from the shackles of fossil fuels not only from a cost perspective but the challenge of delivering that to the battlefield. >> i am hearing from both of you this 25% increase in cost that was not budgeted. is that something you can deal with? >> we are making choices. there are other ways to increase reliance in simulation to develop the efficiency for pilots and ground forces. we will make trade-offs in the operation and maintenance accounts to assure we can maintain a high state of readiness and still pay our bills. i am not going to say it won't

be difficult. this does exacerbate an already stressed operation and maintenance account but we are trying to work within the resources we have fought in short our folks maintain proper training before they deploy. we have no issue delivering fuel to our forces. >> we are part of the aggressive energy efforts led by the secretary. to your point, the challenge of this fiscal year we are facing and should the current crisis be sustained and lately we have seen them start to come down but if they were sustained for the entire year for the department of navy the shortfall would be $1.1 billion that we would face in fuel costs. we would have to offset those by reductions in other areas of operations and maintenance account to pay for that or seek other action from congress to

address it. because it is an execution year of the rise in many efficiency initiatives won't generate those savings or generate them this year. what we won't do is reduce the commitment of those operating forces that combat commanders can sustain what we need to train and operate forward. >> i have little to add except the army is working in three specific areas in operational energy for forces deployed and we will do whatever we have to do to balance whatever accounts we have to ensure they have when they need the we're looking at ways to reduce their reliance. one of them is replacing all our generators with new fuel efficient generators and fuel savings downrange is huge. the request for proposals for the ground combat vehicle and infantry fighting vehicle and the joint tactical vehicles include energy savings and that is a big selling point when you look at the total life cycle

cost of those vehicles once we bring them on board. we are working with a net0 pilot and three installations and using solar at the national training center to help with energy needs and also human resource command, the new personal command of fort knox used geothermal to produce heating and cooling in the summertime. >> the gentlelady from hawaii for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chair. my question is directed at general dunford. we owe a happy birthday to the marine corps. you guys are celebrating the next couple days or so. let me begin with statements you have made in your statement. i am curious about the fact that

you said our nation needs an expeditionary force that can respond to today's crisis with today's force today. first i would like you to explain what you meant by the expeditionary force and also tell me you're talking about today's crisis but what we are looking at as we look at the ten year budget, what is the fourth to look like in the year 2020? those are discussions we have been having with secretary panetta as well as the new chief. if you could proceed accordingly. >> first question concerned expeditionary. what that means is a couple things. we wouldn't be reliant on political access provided by somebody else. if we need to go someplace naval forces are uniquely capable of doing that. we are capable of operating in an austere environment. when we come some place we come

with water and fuel and supplies that are marines and sailors need to accomplish the mission. so that is what we mean by expeditionary. with regards to today's forces as diluted to in my opening statement physical presence matters for a couple reasons. it shows a sign of our economic and military commitment to a particular region. it deters adversaries and reassured our friends. as we move up the range of military operations allows you to respond to crises. many times you have hours if not minutes to respond to a crisis that you certainly can't do that from the naval forces on the scene able to deal with that. the other thing it does is allow you to buy time and space to decisionmakers when you have forces that can contain a crisis as the rest of the joint force is prepared to respond to something that may b